Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1110343
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 28 APRIL 2019 INTERVIEW PN agrees with, on paper. Both parties have called for a revision of the Dublin II Treaty, which is creating situations such as these… That is true; but both parties have also been equally ignored by the EU (if not laughed out of the room) for the past 15 years. Let's face it: how many times does the EU have to say 'No' to a revision of Dublin II, before finally we get it into our heads that the answer is 'No'? I am aware that it is 'easier said than done' to get everyone around the table, and reach an agreement. I'm not burying my head in the sand. Immigration has been on the EU agenda for years; so I am well aware that the EU… or, to be more specif- ic, that certain Member States have no interest in doing any more; perhaps because they are not directly affected themselves. So yes, it is difficult. But I would never say, from the outset, that anything is 'impossible'. We can't allow ourselves to give up so easily. But at the same time, I do not expect the same EU that ignores Malta's concerns about immigration, to then turn on us on another area where we are benefiting – like taxation – as if it's the only issue that exists. It cannot be that the EU focus- es its attention on Malta only when it comes to issues that concern other Member States… but then, on other issues where it is not in those countries' in- terest to intervene… the EU looks the other way, and leaves Malta and other countries to fend for themselves. We have to decide: either we're a 'union' in everything; or we're a 'union' only when it pays some coun- tries to bully others… This brings us to another dimension that seems to be absent from both parties' campaigns: the European Union. It is an open secret that the treaties will be up for revision after this election; the shape of the EU, as we know it today, may soon change… most likely in the direction of 'further integration'. How would you, as an MEP candidate, like to see the EU develop? What I'd like to see is a Europe that is closer to the people… and yes, I know it's what the EU, ultimately, wants as well. But to be 'closer to the people', you have to listen to their concerns. And the concerns of someone from Gozo could be differ- ent even from the concerns of someone from Malta… let alone from people who live, say, in a city in Germany. In this respect, the EU operates very much on a 'one-size-fits-all' approach; and this is part of the problem. It re- sults in individual communities feeling angry or emarginated. The 'one-size-fits-all' approach doesn't even apply from country to country… let alone to specific areas or regions within different member states. Now: I come from Gozo. I know the particu- lar characteristics of the Gozi- tan community; I know what it means when we say the island suffers from 'double insularity'. To give a random example: it's not just a case of having to wake up at 5am to get the early ferry to work in Malta. It impinges even on issues like childcare. If I have children and have no one to keep them for me in Gozo: I would probably have to give up my job in Malta. Because child- care centres do not open before 5am in Gozo. Now, the govern- ment has already said it will look into extending childcare centre hours, so this aspect will hope- fully be addressed soon. But this is what I mean, when I say that 'being closer to the people' also means knowing what their con- cerns really are… In what way, specifically, are EU rules unsuited to the specific circumstances of Gozo? When it comes to Gozo in particular, the EU's rules and regulations are sometimes too generic. They do not 'fit'. For example: I did my MA thesis in European law on maritime services [or 'cabotage', to use the technical term] linking the two islands. There is spe- cific [European] legislation regulating the sector: includ- ing 'preferential rules' specifi- cally for 'small islands'. Natu- rally, I checked whether these rules apply to Gozo: because in my view – and I would im- agine everyone else's – Gozo is a pretty small island, at the end of the day. But I discovered that these 'preferential rules' – which concern subsidies, state aid, and so on – are capped ac- cording to the amount of pas- sengers travelling from one is- land to the other. And because Gozo exceeded the established threshold, we don't qualify for those rules. To me, this doesn't make sense. It is true that many people cross the Gozo channel every day… but it doesn't mean that Gozo is any less disad- vantaged. Or any 'bigger' than we are, for that matter. So it is important that, when we apply these rules, we have to take into account the particular charac- teristics of those communities. Otherwise, we'll only be creat- ing an injustice… Earlier, we spoke of 'convergence' (or the lack thereof) at European level. Could it be, however, that there is too much convergence on local issues? The Gozo-Malta tunnel link, for example. Parliament has unanimously approved a motion in support of the project… when geological surveys and environmental studies still have to be concluded. How is that 'in the national interest'? It is worth remembering that the tunnel featured in both parties' electoral manifestos; so the people did decide on the is- sue, at the last election… Sorry to interrupt, but if the two parties promised the same thing in the manifestos, there was no real 'choice', was there? It's like a referendum where the options are 'Yes' and 'Yes'… But it's a process. There are, as you say, studies going on; and while I approve of the pro- ject in principle… if the studies determine that the plans have to be changed, or that this as- pect is not feasible… I will bow to the experts' recommenda- tions. But I see nothing wrong with two parties outlining their agreement, in principle, by means of a parliamentary mo- tion… What if I say that it was done to: a) eliminate any political opposition from the outset, and; b) to pre-emptively pressure the regulatory authorities (PA, ERA, etc) into making the 'right' decision, when the time comes? I'd say it's your opinion, and you have a right to it. But I don't see it that way myself. Just because Parliament approves the concept of a tunnel link, it doesn't mean the regulatory authorities will not look into all the relevant aspects of the project – including the results of the studies you mentioned – when deciding on the case. You make it sound as if the tunnel has already happened. It hasn't. There is a process going on, and political approval is only one part of it. fit all PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI Yes, there are other areas of possible convergence. I fail to see why we should get lost in attacking each other on an issue like immigration, for instance. Let us concentrate on where we agree